User talk:Srich32977/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Srich32977. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Nomination of Antal E. Fekete for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antal E. Fekete is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antal E. Fekete until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melt core (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hello. I see that you are edit-warring on Griffin and Molyneux. Please take a step back. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are posting utter bullshit warnings on both counts. One edit on Griffin, based on a BLP violation. Edits on Molyneux are supported by BRD, which Steeletrap has ignored. Go harass someone else and WP:DTTR. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please review the relevant policy pages concerning 3RR and edit warring. "supported by BRD" is not an exception. In fact, quite the opposite, you should not revert even when you believe your vevrsion is undeniably superior. As to Griffin, the BLP safe harbor really doesn't seem to apply, because other article content supports the text you are edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- More nonsense. You should look at BLP policy. "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Griffin was fairly stable back in May before Steeletrap started adding boogyman descriptions -- and the earlier version did not have "conspiracy theorist" or "promoter of conspiracy theories" in the lede or infobox. There is no consensus on the talk page to include these contentious labels -- and the page is subject to BLP/Discretionary Sanctions. As for Molyneux, BLP applies as well. Steeletrap's edits were patently biased. (You seem to have agreed.) I've waited patiently for Steeletrap to comment on the talk page, but she seems to have developed other interests. Also, take a look at WP:BLPREMOVE. When it comes to BLP problems, 3RR and EW does not apply. – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- It appears the disruption will continue at the expense of further updates or improvement to the article. It also appears we are dealing with the misconception that consensus overrules policy. I find such actions ironic considering no consensus was ever reached to allow the contentious labeling or the undue, so why must consensus be reached to remove it when there are violations of BLP? Is this a case of WP:OWN? I think it would be best to seek some form of DR, but I'm not familiar with the procedures. Atsme☯Consult 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Srich, it's very unfortunate that you express your views in terms which denigrate an individual editor -- particularly (in light of your history) a female editor such as Steeletrap. If you believe that the Griffin category is a BLP violation, then by that reasoning you should also have removed the article content it reflects. My other remark on your "BRD" riff also stands. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- More nonsense. You should look at BLP policy. "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Griffin was fairly stable back in May before Steeletrap started adding boogyman descriptions -- and the earlier version did not have "conspiracy theorist" or "promoter of conspiracy theories" in the lede or infobox. There is no consensus on the talk page to include these contentious labels -- and the page is subject to BLP/Discretionary Sanctions. As for Molyneux, BLP applies as well. Steeletrap's edits were patently biased. (You seem to have agreed.) I've waited patiently for Steeletrap to comment on the talk page, but she seems to have developed other interests. Also, take a look at WP:BLPREMOVE. When it comes to BLP problems, 3RR and EW does not apply. – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please review the relevant policy pages concerning 3RR and edit warring. "supported by BRD" is not an exception. In fact, quite the opposite, you should not revert even when you believe your vevrsion is undeniably superior. As to Griffin, the BLP safe harbor really doesn't seem to apply, because other article content supports the text you are edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
COI
I remember talking with you about this on another article. What is the policy for an editor editing his own bio? See Don Shipley (stage director). Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mike, I just don't have the energy right now cogitate very much on this. In my opinion it is okay if the editor declares their COI and provides properly sourced and objective info. There is a procedure where people can post requests for edits, but too often those requests get ignored. With Twinkle there is a template COI message for those editing. I also will post a {{tl:connected contributor}} box on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hospice Palliative Care Ontario
Hi there. You tagged Hospice Palliative Care Ontario with {{db-corp}} less than a day ago. (Well, "Hospice Association of Ontario", but I've since moved it.) I've updated the article and believe it no longer qualifies for CSD. Could you please inspect the new article, and if the tag has not yet been removed by other editors when you receive this message, remove the tag if you think the article no longer warrants it. Thanks. Mindmatrix 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mind, I see the improvements but don't think the topic rises to notability for an organisation. The topic would be more helpful if it addressed the national organization (now redlinked), with sections that describe each provincial organization. But that's just my own opinion. The article is not on my watchlist. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sentence comprehension...and categories....
I'm confused...my statement was a generalization of the disruption we are currently experiencing at the article - meaning disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process per Webster. I did not reference editors, and no one can deny there is an interruption in the activity. Just wanted to clarify my position in the event you also misconstrued my comment. Oh, and if I may ask for your input on the information I quoted regarding the categories of conspir theorist and how any additions to that category can only be included if they correlate to one of the subjects listed in Category: Conspiracy Theories? Atsme☯Consult 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) "disruptive" is a technical term in WP and behavior that is characterized that way by the community can lead to an editor being blocked. It is not a term to throw around in Talk page discussions, as you have been doing. That is why a few editors have asked you to strike and to stop using it as you have been. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- You mean comments like the following: "Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile." ? <--- It is not in my nature to say anything as tendentious as the latter, but it certainly was a comment by another editor in response to my GF proposal. I consult you to please stop making spurious comments about me. I can provide all the diffs necessary to prove what I have said VS what other editors have said about me. Following are the exact statements I made on Griffin Talk using the term "disruption", all of which contradicts your claims - (1) "There has been far too much disruption over the minor policy compliant changes that have been proposed", and (2) "Is keeping Griffin a WP:Coatrack so important that it's worth all this disruption?", and finally (3) "...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now." Hardly behavior worthy of blocking, however, now that I have reviewed what other editors have said about me, a boomerang may be in order. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP policy, and what constitutes compliance as demonstrated by your citing of WP:DISRUPTIVE. I do not want to engage you in a tit-for-tat, Jytdog. Please stay focused on the BLP discussion at the Griffin TP, and refrain from stalking me and making further spurious comments about me. Atsme☯Consult 19:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't write what you quote and have made no spurious claims about you. you mentioned that people were unhappy with your use of "disruptive" and i explained why. I am not stalking you and suggest that you strike that comment. i have corresponded with Srich on this page as well and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- See your own sign-in as (talk page stalker) <---which explains my reference. Show me where I mentioned anything about being "unhappy" with "disruptive". I consult you to at least read my comments if you're going to post as a (talk page stalker). Atsme☯Consult 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- there is no point in continuing this. i took the opportunity to respond to your statement of confusion. you don't like my answer. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- See your own sign-in as (talk page stalker) <---which explains my reference. Show me where I mentioned anything about being "unhappy" with "disruptive". I consult you to at least read my comments if you're going to post as a (talk page stalker). Atsme☯Consult 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't write what you quote and have made no spurious claims about you. you mentioned that people were unhappy with your use of "disruptive" and i explained why. I am not stalking you and suggest that you strike that comment. i have corresponded with Srich on this page as well and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- You mean comments like the following: "Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile." ? <--- It is not in my nature to say anything as tendentious as the latter, but it certainly was a comment by another editor in response to my GF proposal. I consult you to please stop making spurious comments about me. I can provide all the diffs necessary to prove what I have said VS what other editors have said about me. Following are the exact statements I made on Griffin Talk using the term "disruption", all of which contradicts your claims - (1) "There has been far too much disruption over the minor policy compliant changes that have been proposed", and (2) "Is keeping Griffin a WP:Coatrack so important that it's worth all this disruption?", and finally (3) "...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now." Hardly behavior worthy of blocking, however, now that I have reviewed what other editors have said about me, a boomerang may be in order. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP policy, and what constitutes compliance as demonstrated by your citing of WP:DISRUPTIVE. I do not want to engage you in a tit-for-tat, Jytdog. Please stay focused on the BLP discussion at the Griffin TP, and refrain from stalking me and making further spurious comments about me. Atsme☯Consult 19:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Premature archiving.
Why archive an RFC that's extremely pertinent to and being frequently referenced in ongoing discussions? If there's too much material on the page, it's easy to archive around one section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm trying to shorten the page a bit by tweaking the archive parameters. Looks like more tweaking is necessaary. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Srich, comments such as this personal remark are only likely to generate more ill will towards your tweaks on these talk pages. I doubt it's in your interest to interact that way. It makes you appear not to AGF. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Question about the RfC....
Shouldn't the RfC have been presented with a brief neutral statement rather than with all the detail which attempts to justify in a non-neutral way the use of a contentious label? The sources cited are an attempt to validate use of the label from a biased view, thus UNDUE and POV. Following are two examples of RS that actually debunk the "conspiracy theory/theorist" claims: [1] (ranked 22,303 US on Alexa), and [2] (ranked 49,730 US on Alexa). The introductions to Griffin read respectively: "G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System." and the other reads (excerpt): "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island. Jim and Mr. Griffin discuss the founding of the Federal Reserve and the extreme secrecy behind it." Griffin also debunks the JFK myth which should give him a leg-up from being what most consider factually to be a conspiracy theorist, [3]. There are several other sources I cited in the discussion that clearly contradict what the POV advocates claim he is best known for, particularly with regard to the following statement: "Jones and Griffin, at least, are not called anything else than conspiracy theorists in reliable sources." and "...and he does say his theory on the Fed is a conspiracy theory in his own book."....and so on. FYI, I just posted notice of the RfC at the NPOV Noticeboard. Signed, the "over-motivated" Atsme☯Consult 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- These discussions as to whether the RFC was properly worded get involved. But we should assume that editors understand what the meaning of the RFC is when they post their responses & !votes. Otherwise they could say "I don't understand the question because...." Or they could say "The wording of the question is biased because....." Also note that RFCs have a 30 day "default" period before they get removed from the RFC notification pages. Non-involved editors (usually admins or well qualified editors) usually let the 30 days run before closing them. So don't be too anxious. – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Srich has hit the nail on the head once again. It's far worse to get tied up in a metadiscussion about the less-than-ideal wording of the RfC. The closing review can take account of all the discussion and in my experience sidetracking to find better wording of the RfC ends up leading to confusion and needless controversy. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Judgement
this dif, with the invocation of hitler and stooping to ad hominem arguments, one of the lowest forms of argumentation, whew. Bad judgement, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- You will notice that I tried to invoke some humor into the posting, clearly recognizing by the link I added that the argument was a low form. But it has some validity, as per the comparisons we are studying between the use of CT in Griffins article and other CT articles. (The point being that use of derogatory terms in the lede must be done with circumspect.) So lighten up. Your rantings/comments about how I make personal comments on the article talk page is doing exactly what you think is improper -- commenting on the personal action of another editor rather than on content. (Did you gripe when Arthur Rubin said "You seem to be assuming..."? Wasn't that a personal comment?) You are welcome to post here, on this user talk page, and say whatever the fuck you want to say. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- however you couch it, you went to Hitlerlandia and you definitely speculated on my motivations. I discussed your behavior per WP:TPG. we need to raise the game, not lower it. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you said "The precedents make it clear that it is not out of bounds to use it in the lead." Hitler is just one of those precedents about derogatory terms. And you have commented yourself about motivations and editors, directly and by implication: "I do understand that you and Atsme have strongly disagreed." "just making shit up", "not hard to do." "Why do you say this?" etc. Invoking TPG on the talk page to criticize another editor's comment itself is a TPNO. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- hey, just wanted to give you some feedback. you can hear it or not, but just turning it back on me? ah well what are you going to do. done here. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback you've posted here. And I'm providing feedback in return. So I'll add that thanking editors for supporting your position on the article talk page is a TPNO matter. Specifico knows how these RFCs work, so you don't need to prompt him to get a vote. And you needn't clutter the talk page with personal thanks. Use that little "thank you" feature. (Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Srich, I wasn't offended by the reminder. No harm done! I did think it was strange that you removed my earlier comment here without responding, but no harm done there either. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback you've posted here. And I'm providing feedback in return. So I'll add that thanking editors for supporting your position on the article talk page is a TPNO matter. Specifico knows how these RFCs work, so you don't need to prompt him to get a vote. And you needn't clutter the talk page with personal thanks. Use that little "thank you" feature. (Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- hey, just wanted to give you some feedback. you can hear it or not, but just turning it back on me? ah well what are you going to do. done here. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue was not whether someone had been offended by the comment, rather whether the talk page was being used properly by saying "Hey, you! Yes, you. Don't make personal comments on the article talk page." Doing so is a violation of TPG in its own right. – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think you have your signals crossed. I just meant I was not offended that he reminded me to summarize my view in the survey section. I didn't notice the other bit. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Editorial Content
Dear Sir, I am new to Wikipedia. I wish to learn the rules. To this end would you mind elaborating on your comment "added editorial comment" associated with my "progressive tax" change. My intent in changing Wikipedia was to correct facts surrounding the hard right wing "tea party" view of tax policy included in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_tax&action=history 13:24, 7 November 2014 24.127.238.33
Thanks for you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.238.33 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've responded on your IP user talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Stossel
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You're at 3 RR now on the Stossel article. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not lost my ability to count. You, on the other hand, have failed to honor WP:BRD. Don't tell me to use talk when I already have and don't support a relatively inexperienced editor who wishes to inject POV into the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC) PS: Actually I am at '2RR'. You should read WP:3RR which says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The 3rd edit you saw added a citation and did not change what the other editor had done. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- You know I'm here to help you, Srich. The counting is important, especially for when you become an Admin and will need to adjudicate in these matters. [4] [5] [6]. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO. Cool it on the edit warring games. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal Injury Lawyer
Thanks for the message. I thought adding a citation to a page that answered the question would be okay. Now I see that others did the same thing before. Sorry to add to your workload and for making you revert the changes again. Jkothe (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Jkothe: It is quite alright. It is not the info which is the problem, but the source and the commercial/advertising interest of the source. I hope you can find another source. – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would this work as a citation? http://www.lawyeredu.org/personal-injury-lawyer.html Jkothe (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Jkothe: I'd say yes. But others might object. If they do, you discuss the proposed edit in the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2.17 IP user
I just wanted to let you know that they found a user you dealt with before and asked them to lock the state bar page, its their modus operandi and they did the same with me. You can see it here. I just wanted to let you know. - SantiLak (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit war
Thank you.2.177.211.97 (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.211.97 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
ad hominem at America
Hi. Your additional words make clear that you are still misusing the term. Please review its meaning. Also, it's confusing to reader for you to have changed the text of your previous writing after I had commented on it. I suggest you revert and put your further thoughts beneath mine as a response. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. (I've been at this for awhile.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think we all got one as part of protocol following the PP. Uh oh - we've been WP:Canvassed....but in a good way.
Atsme☯Consult 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. I'm the one who first posted the sanctions template on the talk page based on Griffin's Austrian School interest. Callanecc, who is an Overseer, added in the BLP provision and let the active editors know what's what. – S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think we all got one as part of protocol following the PP. Uh oh - we've been WP:Canvassed....but in a good way.
Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. While I appreciate the overwatching, I think the notification is misplaced. The Griffin article is a BLP and only involves Pseudoscience as a tangent. My editing on pseudoscience topics is quite limited. I certainly don't want WP to be used to promote pseudoscience or to improperly debunk pseudoscience by using SYN in BLP articles. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
For being right 2/3 of the time. I'll soon have a fun youtube video channel I might let you nitpick at a little. Total free speech at my youtube video channel? NOT!! 
Keep your ears open...
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Grammatical errors on WP:Competence
Ironically, the page admonishing readers to deal with incompetence is presented incompetently. Many of the types of incompetence listed--such as "language difficulty [incompetence]"--are grammatically incorrect. My attempt to rectify this has been reverted on multiple occasions by Binksternet (most recently here). He probably doesn't understand why the terms are ungrammatical. He also probably didn't like the synonyms of the incompetence types I added, including the descriptively accurate but politically incorrect "intellectual [incompetence]." I encourage you to add your own grammatically correct synonyms of the incompetence types, because I don't think Bink is up to the task (and I doubt he'd revert you, since he likes you).
Also, these terms should be sub-section. Incompetence" is a vague term that needs to be made concrete. Surely, then, the types of incompetence are crucial to the article. They should be given the salience that comes with being a sub-section. Steeletrap (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
State Bar of California article
Thanks for the rewrite of the criticism / executive producer lawsuit section. I didn't like the IP's phrasing (and still don't like putting accusations / lawsuits just filed in articles) but the sourcing outside of the Courtroom News Service show the notability and the response helps as well. I looked at it a few days ago and couldn't come up with a decent rewrite. Thanks for how you handled it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Non-aggression page
Surely you'll agree that it is a disaster in its current state. The attempt to equate Jesus, Epicurus, and Islamic philosophers to modern Ayn Rand libertarianism is blatant synthesis. The use of "statist" to describe opponents of NAP is tendentious. Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you in many respects, and that's why I invited you to go back to it. But the burden is on you to be more circumspect when it comes to T-Ban items. – S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Exorcism
Do you disagree with me that exorcism is distinct from, say, religious claims about what happens to you after die (or claims about how the universe came into being; or claims about god's nature?)? Clearly it is relatively unique among religious claims in that it makes causal statements about how things in the world (or certain human minds) works. Hence is falls into the realm of pseudoscience AND religion, not merely religion. Steeletrap (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion about article improvement is best handled on the article talk page. Still, as I have stated on your talk page, I think adding any "scientific" or "pseudoscientific" descriptives to the article lede is UNDUE. I recommend that you use the Williams Encyclopedia material to expand the article section and not add it to the lede. Otherwise you will meet resistance which is not worth the effort. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you know what "neutral" means?
It does not mean we present every individual's views charitably. It means we present them as RS do. In the case of Griffin, his views are considered conspiracy theories and fringe science by RS. You are violating NPOV by putting your own PC spin on the Griffin article, rather than deferring to RS judgment. Steeletrap (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Steeletrap, perhaps you misunderstood WP:NPOV. It clearly states...Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Views are just that - VIEWS, not FACTS. Views are nothing more than attitudes and/or opinion. Please familiarize yourself with the policy, and pay special attention to the strict adherence requirements at WP:BLP. Kindest regards. Atsme☯Consult 13:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please tell me which "opinion" I have added to Griffin's article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have added opinion via some of your edits. For example, I provided neutral section headings and you reverted. You have pushed the "conspiracy theory" aspects of the article, which are POV. (For example, presenting the Sean Easter/Media Matters description. Easter/MM & Kembrew McLeod need "according to" qualifiers so that WP is not the vehicle by which Griffin is criticized. McLeod might have been a good source. But you did a lousy job in citing him. You put the date in twice, did not designate "181" as a page number, and failed to provide an ISBN. Worse, though, you mis-quoted the passage. It reads "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists." Perhaps your dislike of Griffin has clouded your judgment. Please consider and be more careful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from the duplicate dates, my citation was in conformity with the Chicago Manual of Style, which does not require "p" or any other notation prior to a page number. Steeletrap (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC) You consistently misunderstand NPOV. You think we have to present the views of Griffin or Alex Jones as if they were the views of Einstein. That's not NPOV. NPOV=following what RS say. His views about cancer, AIDS, Noah's Ark, and so forth are conspiracy theories according to RS. Steeletrap (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- hey Steeletrap and Srich32977 -- please keep this calm and not personal, and please discuss the article content on the article Talk page, so we can all participate. There is no need to get emotional here nor to personalize this, nor get lost on little details. We have some big picture stuff that needs working out. If we really try, and cannot work specific issues out on the article Talk page, there are lots of dispute resolution processes we can go through. Please just take it slow, and stay calm. Thanks. If you all haven't read Wikipedia:Controversial articles please do so, carefully. and please reflect on it and follow it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Jytdog. Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- thank you for hearing it graciously, steeletrap. in that spirit, would you please consider changing the section header? people can disagree in good faith on how to apply the overlapping sets of policies that are in play here. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly, I will consider your arguments for changing it. But Srich has not made any arguments. He has made bare conclusory statements of "non-NPOV." If he could explain why it is non-neutral to describe Griffin's views (specifically, his denial that HIV causes AIDS, and his view that the cure for cancer is laertile and Congress is covering up the cure) as conspiracy theories and fringe science, I would listen. But bare conclusory statements don't do it for me. Steeletrap (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- thank you for hearing it graciously, steeletrap. in that spirit, would you please consider changing the section header? people can disagree in good faith on how to apply the overlapping sets of policies that are in play here. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Jytdog. Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- hey Steeletrap and Srich32977 -- please keep this calm and not personal, and please discuss the article content on the article Talk page, so we can all participate. There is no need to get emotional here nor to personalize this, nor get lost on little details. We have some big picture stuff that needs working out. If we really try, and cannot work specific issues out on the article Talk page, there are lots of dispute resolution processes we can go through. Please just take it slow, and stay calm. Thanks. If you all haven't read Wikipedia:Controversial articles please do so, carefully. and please reflect on it and follow it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from the duplicate dates, my citation was in conformity with the Chicago Manual of Style, which does not require "p" or any other notation prior to a page number. Steeletrap (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC) You consistently misunderstand NPOV. You think we have to present the views of Griffin or Alex Jones as if they were the views of Einstein. That's not NPOV. NPOV=following what RS say. His views about cancer, AIDS, Noah's Ark, and so forth are conspiracy theories according to RS. Steeletrap (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have added opinion via some of your edits. For example, I provided neutral section headings and you reverted. You have pushed the "conspiracy theory" aspects of the article, which are POV. (For example, presenting the Sean Easter/Media Matters description. Easter/MM & Kembrew McLeod need "according to" qualifiers so that WP is not the vehicle by which Griffin is criticized. McLeod might have been a good source. But you did a lousy job in citing him. You put the date in twice, did not designate "181" as a page number, and failed to provide an ISBN. Worse, though, you mis-quoted the passage. It reads "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists." Perhaps your dislike of Griffin has clouded your judgment. Please consider and be more careful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
my comment was discussing your behavior, not his. :) my sense is that Srich has a different understanding of NPOV than you and possibly me (I am still trying to work out his perspective). but asking real questions rather than rhetorical ones is generally more productive. but do as you will! Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Conclusory statements versus arguments
Srich, you have not made an argument as to why "conspiracy theories" and "fringe science" are biased as descriptions of Griffin's work. You simply make conclusory statements about 'bias' and 'NPOV.' That is not helpful. You would do better in this community if you provided arguments for your conclusions.
What is your argument? Is it that those words are bias because they portray Griffin in a negative light? Is it that these terms are not descriptive but rather normative? I need more specifics before I can engage you. Steeletrap (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- please do this on the article Talk page. please. it is hard enough to work toward consensus without having side discussions. but of course, do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Steeletrap: Please look more closely. I've said fringe is inappropriate because there is no RS in the text. Moreover, putting the term in the heading is not neutral because it is an opinion based description. (Take a look at Water memory, a fringy science topic if there ever was one. The term fringe is not even in the article.) Likewise, conspiracy theory/ist is inappropriate because these are derogatory terms of opinion. Both fringe and conspiracy theory are opinion-based and I've cited policy that says section headings are required to be neutral. And when opinions are expressed we need to attribute the opinions. E.g., "Professor X says Griffin has 'nutty' ideas."
- Jytdog: Steeletrap is welcome to comment here. If she has worthwhile remarks for the article talk page I'm sure she will post them there. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- as you will! Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Your thoughts, please
I am going to request that the BLP violations be removed from the article, and would appreciate your advice on how best to present the request. I was advised to make the request on the article's TP, so I imagine a ping would be appropriate. I believe all the arguments for and against were well presented on the article's TP, but I've seen nothing that would validate inclusion of the contentious labels and pejorative terminology in the lead. Atsme☯Consult 01:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- You use {{Edit protected}}. See WP:EDITREQ for guidance. Be specific in what you want changed (by quoting the words) and why they are a BLP problem and what you propose to use as alternative language. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question - should World Without Cancer be included in the lead? I think it is more appropriate for a BLP to include the first book he ever published along with his most notable which would be The Creature.... The body of the article can include other widely recognized titles with brief overviews highlighting areas of interest. Atsme☯Consult 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you feel progress is being made at the Griffin TP, and if so, in what regard? Atsme☯Consult 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. And one aspect of this is the involvement of User:Callanecc, a WP Oversight member. This is a level above Administrator and these Wikipedians are quite rare (41 total). Please consider that Callanecc has done and what advice has been given.
- I'm totally in support of Callanecc, can't help but admire his accomplishments. I just don't see the progress at Griffin. I went back through the edit history, and saw how the article transitioned to what it is today. It was actually in June of this year that the contentious label was added. It was attempted once before back in 2008, but the team of collaborators at the time wouldn't allow it. There may have been other attempts, but I didn't comb the edits that closely. I just want to get the article policy compliant, and then improve where necessary and expand it for a DYK candidacy. As you know, there are time constraints between the time of expansion and nomination. Editors can't possibly meet that timeline under the circumstances we're having to work under now. Some of the editors who are acting as guardians haven't even contributed any edits to improve or expand the article. Makes me wonder why they're so determined to revert the work of others. Atsme☯Consult 05:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are misinformed about DYK. Please look at WP:WIADYK. Note that I did two reassessments on the article – Class from B to C in August and to a Start class last week. To get a DYK the article needs a recent Good Article review. Next, if the article does not have an interesting "hook" it won't pass DYK muster. In this regard you must remember that Griffin is in many ways a kook given his promotion of laetrile, Noahs Ark, etc. Well, if the Ark was actually discovered or if laetrile was actually accepted by the medical community, then there'd be a hook. Since this ain't gonna happen, a DYK is not in the offing. Moreover, many in the WP community would oppose a DYK nomination because the nomination would be seen as promotional. And I am included in that group. Why? Because I'm more interested in making sure that WP keeps its BLP nose clean. And that is why you see me opposing the efforts to SYN a negative taint into the article. I dislike Griffin's kooky ideas, but I won't let WP become a vehicle to bash him. – S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Srich, thank you for your transparency. I actually maintain an agnostic position with regards to my editing, which is probably a result of 30+ years as a professional writer/publisher/producer. I guess after you've spent lots of $$ (six figures) for errors & omissions policies over the years, survived several defamation and copyvio legal challenges, sat on numerous discussion panels, etc., one tends to learn the art of neutrality, the laws of copyright, and how best to keep one's nose clean. Unfortunately, insurance companies don't offer policies for one's "duh moments" or standing strong on principal, all of which can get pretty darn expensive, especially if you have an auto immune disease of the adrenal gland resulting in OCD to get things right. (I have no idea what I just said). My reference to DYK was actually for articles that, within the past seven days, have been either ..... expanded at least five fold.. I've done 5 DYKs this year, and got them all promoted to GAs, one of which became an FA which will be featured on the main page Dec 24th. I actually do have a pretty good understanding of the process. It's impossible to know all of WP's policies inside and out, but the policies I do know, I know well, and that includes BLP. I realize my edit count is flimsy compared to some of our seasoned editors who have chalked up numerous FAs - actually one of my goals here - and I feel extremely honored for the opportunity to have worked with some of the best editors on Wiki. There is a huge difference in publishing/writing/editing/producing magazines, screenplays and television specials VS contributing what little one has learned over the years to help aspiring writers, editors, etc. on WP. I am not immune to making mistakes - I am after all, a mere human - but I still believe Griffin could be a candidate for DYK, possibly even GA if it's written properly, and adheres strictly to policy. That's what I specialize in, and enjoy doing most. Thank you for your unending patience, and tireless contributions. Your efforts are much appreciated. Atsme☯Consult 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Srich, thank you for your transparency. I actually maintain an agnostic position with regards to my editing, which is probably a result of 30+ years as a professional writer/publisher/producer. I guess after you've spent lots of $$ (six figures) for errors & omissions policies over the years, survived several defamation and copyvio legal challenges, sat on numerous discussion panels, etc., one tends to learn the art of neutrality, the laws of copyright, and how best to keep one's nose clean. Unfortunately, insurance companies don't offer policies for one's "duh moments" or standing strong on principal, all of which can get pretty darn expensive, especially if you have an auto immune disease of the adrenal gland resulting in OCD to get things right. (I have no idea what I just said).
- I think you are misinformed about DYK. Please look at WP:WIADYK. Note that I did two reassessments on the article – Class from B to C in August and to a Start class last week. To get a DYK the article needs a recent Good Article review. Next, if the article does not have an interesting "hook" it won't pass DYK muster. In this regard you must remember that Griffin is in many ways a kook given his promotion of laetrile, Noahs Ark, etc. Well, if the Ark was actually discovered or if laetrile was actually accepted by the medical community, then there'd be a hook. Since this ain't gonna happen, a DYK is not in the offing. Moreover, many in the WP community would oppose a DYK nomination because the nomination would be seen as promotional. And I am included in that group. Why? Because I'm more interested in making sure that WP keeps its BLP nose clean. And that is why you see me opposing the efforts to SYN a negative taint into the article. I dislike Griffin's kooky ideas, but I won't let WP become a vehicle to bash him. – S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm totally in support of Callanecc, can't help but admire his accomplishments. I just don't see the progress at Griffin. I went back through the edit history, and saw how the article transitioned to what it is today. It was actually in June of this year that the contentious label was added. It was attempted once before back in 2008, but the team of collaborators at the time wouldn't allow it. There may have been other attempts, but I didn't comb the edits that closely. I just want to get the article policy compliant, and then improve where necessary and expand it for a DYK candidacy. As you know, there are time constraints between the time of expansion and nomination. Editors can't possibly meet that timeline under the circumstances we're having to work under now. Some of the editors who are acting as guardians haven't even contributed any edits to improve or expand the article. Makes me wonder why they're so determined to revert the work of others. Atsme☯Consult 05:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. And one aspect of this is the involvement of User:Callanecc, a WP Oversight member. This is a level above Administrator and these Wikipedians are quite rare (41 total). Please consider that Callanecc has done and what advice has been given.
- Do you feel progress is being made at the Griffin TP, and if so, in what regard? Atsme☯Consult 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question - should World Without Cancer be included in the lead? I think it is more appropriate for a BLP to include the first book he ever published along with his most notable which would be The Creature.... The body of the article can include other widely recognized titles with brief overviews highlighting areas of interest. Atsme☯Consult 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Cemetery
There are notable cemeteries. I think one in Los Angeles, and another in Barre, Vermont. I'm sure there are others, but most aren't. I would guess that 99%+ of place articles do not have cemeteries mentioned, because they are not notable. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- The editing question is WP:NOTEWORTHY, not notability. So Los Angeles has several notable cemeteries in the area, and many of these cemeteries have their own articles. – S. Rich (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
POV and content deletion
Rich, I've noticed a pattern of you deleting content, all of a certain political slant, while you employ unusual and shifting arguments. Supported only by liberal (but reliable) sources - not noteworthy because it's only of interest to liberals - undue emphasis, so delete entirely. When all else fails, there's just something wrong with that content but I can't articulate what it is - so let's just delete it for now. I'll tell you, this pattern really troubles me, and it seems to be getting worse, perhaps in reaction to Hugh? We've worked pretty well together in the past, but it's getting harder to take your arguments seriously. Please don't be another POV warrior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Mother Jones
Just a note that I didn't see this edit [7] of yours before I started a new section [8] on Mother Jones. I moved your comment to the new section I started. Hope you don't mind--if you do, feel free to revert. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. And you'll see that I retitled & subsectionalized the stuff. In part I was responding to HughD. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Concern
The ag-gag article is a complete mess. Have you put it up for deletion, if so where is the discussion? Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Special greeting...
Alleged TB violation
I am perplexed by your allegations. Can you please specifically describe to me how I violated the TB? (Emphasis on specific.) Do you think Raimondo is affiliated with LvMI? Do you think removing unsourced content that contains the word "Murray Rothbard" is a violation? It seems to me that you are ignoring the intention of the TB and instead adopting a literalistic and tendentious interpretation of its tenets. Steeletrap (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you playing dumb? I don't think so. Rather, you find a article that you want to do a little WP:RGW-on and then fail to consider the consequences of your edits. Again, I advise to take a little time to review WP:TBAN – especially the fourth bullet example. When you edit material related to Murray Rothbard or Lew Rockwell, who are associated with Mises.org, you are violating the TBAN. Earlier I said I would report your violations, but I relented on this latest violation. Please don't think I am crying wolf. Be on the safe side and carefully consider whether the topic or the people or the references are related to Mises.org. Your taunts about competence and fringe will not deter me. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- On law school exams at San Diego U, were you able to get away with just stating your conclusion without a supporting argument? Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have raised this at AN since I believe this type of recidivist tendentious editing on BLP issues simply cannot be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate: actually, because the edits involve violation of the specific TBAN and because they involve BLP violations, the proper venue is Arbcom Enforcement. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I was suggesting a potential broadening of the topic ban beyond the topic of Austrian Economics and thus raised it at AN as such a broadening would not fall within the scope of the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've hoped that my admonitions would be sufficient, but Steeletrap seems to be putting her head in the sand. Now, above, she taunts me about law school. (She ought to try attending law school and taking the Bar Exam.) Even so, I had expected to wait till 2015 to pursue this. So I'm glad you've initiated action. As I read your comment, you are asking that Steeletrap's TBAN be expanded. Perhaps into topics involving libertarianism (and other topics)? I'm just not familiar enough with the process. I surmise that an Arbcom member could do so (e.g., broaden the scope of the TBAN) independently from the ANI process. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Srich you're making a warthog out of a chipmunk here. Stand back. A small content dispute and you wish to pursue draconian sanctions? Really? SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Quit being so sensitive, soldier. I wasn't taunting you about law school. I was trying to bring you back to your former studious self. The point was that you must (given your education) be capable of making real arguments, as opposed to bare conclusory statements. Steeletrap (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Srich you're making a warthog out of a chipmunk here. Stand back. A small content dispute and you wish to pursue draconian sanctions? Really? SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've hoped that my admonitions would be sufficient, but Steeletrap seems to be putting her head in the sand. Now, above, she taunts me about law school. (She ought to try attending law school and taking the Bar Exam.) Even so, I had expected to wait till 2015 to pursue this. So I'm glad you've initiated action. As I read your comment, you are asking that Steeletrap's TBAN be expanded. Perhaps into topics involving libertarianism (and other topics)? I'm just not familiar enough with the process. I surmise that an Arbcom member could do so (e.g., broaden the scope of the TBAN) independently from the ANI process. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You are being naive. The conclusion will be rendered by an administrator or Arbcom member. I think you will be on vacation for awhile. (But I am glad that you appreciate that I am a sensitive person.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC
Also, stop victim playing. Last year, when the Arbcom was underway, I commented during the discussion and the Arbcom decided to impose a TBAN. The TBAN was based on the evidence and arguments presented. Later, despite my gentle admonitions to behave, you persisted in Pushing the Envelope (album). But pushing the envelope ≈ POV-pushing. Consequently, I expect further sanctions are in the offing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um, no. I'm not going to get banned, because most people (including many who hate me) disagree with your muddle-headed interpretation of my TB. You are belatedly recognizing this and, knowing that the thread will close without action, are trying to lead the way in a closure so that you can say that the closure doesn't reflect a victory for Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Noticeboard
Thank you for writing and finding solution.[9] It is just a normal administrator noticeboard,(AN) not incident(ANI). I know you are aware of it, but I thought of pointing it to you because you have called it ANI. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad you agreed with me
Frankly, I was rather puzzled by that edit of yours. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Sloppy of me. I went through the category articles and if I did't see "plot" or "conspi" in the search results, I quickly scanned by eyeball and then removed the category. Actually, I think the category is over broad. It seems to encompass anyone who has accepted or mentioned some sort of conspiracy, even if they had no hand in developing the particular theory. At the moment I'm thinking about adding the category to Hillary's and Reverend White's articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the category is for people who are substantially known for propagating a particular conspiracy theory, not just people who discuss actual conspiracies. The Bolsheviki were an actual conspiracy; the American Legislative Exchange Council functions as a conspiracy, albeit the existent of the actual conspiracy is not much of a secret anymore. Discussing either of them does not make you a conspiracy theorist. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Quite so. But as "conspiracy theorist" has become a derogatory term, it is problematic. Take a look at what's going on at G. Edward Griffin. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the category is for people who are substantially known for propagating a particular conspiracy theory, not just people who discuss actual conspiracies. The Bolsheviki were an actual conspiracy; the American Legislative Exchange Council functions as a conspiracy, albeit the existent of the actual conspiracy is not much of a secret anymore. Discussing either of them does not make you a conspiracy theorist. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
One click archiver
Question - when I paste the code into my /common.js page, it generates an error symbol. I saved it anyway, but don't see any change. The instructions aren't very detailed, and I'm not that well-versed writing code. Your help will be appreciated. Atsme☯Consult 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I cant remember how I activated the feature. Perhaps on the Preferences section – Gadgets – of your user page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year Srich32977!
Srich32977,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Atsme☯Consult 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
A beer on me! | |
| I couldn't find an 18-pak, so just start with this one. You've earned the entire distributorship. Atsme☯Consult 06:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| As a reminder to keep your greatest life aspiration in sight. Steeletrap (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
- Considering that you offered the barnstar as one of your final edits before going into retirement, it is accepted and appreciated. And I thank you for the many constructive edits you provided to the project. Other edits I will praise as having been interesting. (I will add that adminship is hardly my greatest life aspiration.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- After that ARE complaint will be closed, you will try for a RFA? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- At present I'm killing time as a real life/death event sssslllloooowwwwllllyyyy comes to a close. Then, after moving and doing a few Spartan Races, I shall think about those silly questions that RFAs must endure. – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- After that ARE complaint will be closed, you will try for a RFA? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Paring back to a policy compliant version
As you and I have both pointed out on the Griffin TP, the article was actually policy compliant and quite stable in June 2014, and then the contentious "conspiracy label" was added and things went downhill from there. I don't understand why WP:BLP (Maintenance of BLPs) doesn't take precedence: When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required. Based on what's happening now, shouldn't the article be pared back to the policy-compliant version, at least until the disputes have been resolved? Atsme☯Consult 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome Back!
Srich, I hope you're now set to pursue your Admin quest, per ((ping|Atsme}}.
I am concerned about your visit to Steeletrap's page yesterday. It will be viewed as a Gravedance post. There was no action under consideration, your view was not solicited, and in any event that was not the place for you to present whatever concepts you were trying to articulate concerning Steeletrap's block. The Admin process is tough and your delay has already seen an increase in the likely opposition to your petition. Please keep the big picture in mind. I suggest you consider a voluntary one-way interaction ban with Steeletrap, similar to the one you graciously accepted with @EllenCT:. As you know, I think you've repeatedly gotten tied up in unproductive interactions with various female editors here and it's best in my opinion that you now disengage from Steeletrap. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Interview for The Signpost
This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Death
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Death for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)